In article <Xns9A99B9DD1B2grommit383aolcom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Sean Houtman
<grommit383@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>ctbishop@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Charles Bishop) wrote in
>news:ctbishop-0805081545420001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>4.246.36.21.dial1.sanjose1.level3.n
>et:
>
>> In article <ipj624dvd4opc7j47sfk80d6psv9oj2vrd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> neckhardt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>>On 8 May 2008 13:04:02 -0500, M C Hamster
>>><davolson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Y'all remember the Honda commercial with the Rube Goldberg thing,
>>>>right? That was one take.
>>>
>>>One take that worked right, and 605 takes that didn't go right.
>>>
>>>http://www.snopes.com/photos/advertisements/hondacog.asp
>>>
>>>but hey, it was one take.
>>
>> I just watched a Christmas Special from Mythbusters, and they had a RG
>> machine too. They did the same thing: Ran it until it completed its
>> task in one go. The others were filmed, but there was no cut and
>> paste, it was one take.
>>
>> I wonder if they did the Honda commercial as well. They used to (maybe
>> still do) work on commercials of that type.
>>
>
>I think you refer to one shot. A take is an attempt at filming the scene
>that you want. It generally takes several takes to get a successful
>shot, and the number of takes can get into the hundreds, even if you are
>putting several different shots together.
>
I was going to argue this, but upon mulling it over decided that while I'm
"right" I'm not right enough. Only if they had done it on the first take
would they have done it in one take.
--
charles
|
